jess

Hello all--- I am having issues understanding parts of the Monarchy and I would love to put stuff into context...

(there is a book in the works, and I want to keep stuff as 'true' as possible...)

Does any one know of excellent to fine books/ articles in hard copy or on line which go into detail of the culture and the laws of that time period? Things preferrably with art and foods, as well as dry history?

I also have questions that range quite a bit--- let me summarize them here...

Obviously (in the subject head), all my questions are concerning the time period between Saul and the end of Solomon's reign, focusing on David's time (although I am assuming there isn't much that changes between these three kingdoms?)

I know that the use of Y's name was forbidden, and even the word 'god' was. What were acceptable words? I have figured 'Lord' would work. Am I correct? And are there other words that could be used as well?

I know at some point, the tradition became something like a child was not named until over a week after birth (thus, never asking a Jewish couple what the name of their newborn IS, but what it will be). I want to know what happened in this time period, if it was the same thing, and what happened to a child who died soon after birth (about a week). Was this death a socially mourned death? Or was it socially unacceptable to mourn a child so young? How long would mouring be, and what would be done for this child (a normal burial or a different type)? Would it not have a name? And would this all depend on the sex of the child?


Specifically, I am asking about a boy born sickly and died -- possibly due to the mother's actions late in pregnancy--- at the age of 7 days.

(I was told that it made no difference when the child died, but, if it did not, then why wait for the child to be named? If there was no difference between the death of a 2 day old and the death of a 10 day old, why not name at birth? 3000 years ago, there must have been a difference--- it seems that way to me. If a boy-child doesn’t ‘count’ until circumscion, then would a child younger than that be publically mourned, if it 'doesn't yet count'. Does that make sense? I know the child would be mourned by family, but in private alone, possibly?)

I'm also curious about suicide and arrempted suicide, and the ramifications of a woman who is pregnant to attempt suicide. (If a woman was caused to miscarry, there was a fine imposed--- what would happen if a woman, through deliberate actions prior to the baby's birth, causes the death of an infant?)

I have found that the mourning period for a widow for her husband during this time period was only a few days; is this true?

Did artists of this time period have an injunction against duplicating nature (like modern Muslims) or would frescos and mosaic depicting wild animals etc. be as common in Jerusalem/ City of David as they were in other parts of the contemporary world?

And I need all of this based on customs and traditions and laws of 1000 bce...

<whew>

Thanks for any help at all--- for answers and references!

jess

no one? 28 views and no help at all?

<sniff>

Toto

I don't want to ignore you. I don't know of any sources for social history of that time period. spin might know, but he may not be back for a few months.

Yes - "Adonai" is the usual term (translated Lord).

Celsus

Try Michael Coogan's Oxford History of the Biblical World.

Joel

DrJim

A lot of the social customs etc has to be gleaned from the biblical text and the dates for anything there is hotly disputed. Many folks nowadays would say there is nothing whatsoever that can be dated to within 400 years of the early monarchic period. Scholarship is pretty divided on the issue.

Another source of information is comparative data with other ANE cultures, but this is not reliable: a custom in one place need not be practiced everywhere.

Based on rather conservative (i.e., early) dates for the biblical material, but addressing many of the kinds of questions you are interested in is P. J. King and L. E. Stager, Life in Biblical Israel (Westminster John Knox, 2001. Articles on all sorts of stuff, lots of pictures, quite usefull.


JRL

jess

:notworthy :notworthy

Thank you soooo much!

more help is welcomed!

and spin will be back? Why should s/he be able to help me?

Celsus

I can't speak for spin, but several of us *cough* don't believe anything can be said about a united monarchy with any confidence. I disagree with the relevant chapters in Coogan's book (Carol Myers' chapter particularly), but that's exactly what you're looking for (the transition from tribal structure to monarchy would help to understand the legal system).

As spin likes to say, Jerusalem was a one horse town at the time (or is that goat?), and he's not far off.

Joel

Amaleq13

He should be able to help you because he is knows "a bit" about the subject. He will likely do so because that is how he gives people hugs.

jess

what is wrong with Coogan's book?

I'm doing some research to try and make a book realistic--- will it help that way?

Celsus

Well it's slightly complicated. It depends on when the Deuteronomistic History was written (Samuel-Kings). If it was written between the 9th and 6th centuries BCE, then all would be well. But if it was written in the 4th or 3rd centuries, then we should be much more cautious of the way Myers writes of the tribal league. That said, the few of us *cough* who feel this way are a minority, and she does draw examples externally from written sources. If your purpose is to write a fiction, then it would be an excellent source.

Some examples--Myers relies on lists that grow longer in Samuel and Kings to make conclusions such as a growing bureaucracy between the time of David and Solomon. Or another:
The evidence for all of this? The Bible. It's all a little too credulous--too much a matter of relying on the Bible for reconstruction without questioning whether (or where) the Bible is accurate. However, you'll know anything is on the money when she draws in other ancient Near Eastern practices as comparison. The rest of the Biblical passages used are basically working on an overt acceptance of nonsupernatural aspects of the books. Even if you assume the piece to be written relatively near the time of the events, it's possible that they can be radically distorted (Baruch Halpern had an interesting article--and forthcoming book--that argues that David was quite the scheming bloodthirsty powermonger). Some of it may well be right, but I'd still urge more caution than Myers exhibits.

But anyway, if you're going to use it as a base for a fictional setting, by all means, go ahead--you're in safe waters.

Joel